View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Commission européenne, 2920 Luxembourg, LUXEMBOURG - Tel. +352 4301-1
Office: BECH - Tel. direct line +352 4301-37123 - Fax +352 4301-33899
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
Antonio.Consoli@ec.europa.eu
EUROPEAN COMMISSION EUROSTAT Directorate A: Cooperation in the European Statistical System; international cooperation; resources Task Force Integrated Planning
REPORT ON THE EUROSTAT 2016 USER SATISFACTION SURVEY
Index 1. Background – about the survey
2. Main outcomes
3. Results of the USS 2016
3.1. General information
3.1.1. Who uses Eurostat’s European statistics?
3.1.2. To do what?
3.1.2.1. How important are the statistics?
3.1.2.2. How often are the statistics used?
3.1.3. Where are European statistics obtained from?
3.2. Information on quality aspects
3.2.1. Overall quality
3.2.2. Timeliness
3.2.3. Completeness
3.2.4. Comparability
3.3. Trust in European statistics
3.4. Information on dissemination aspects
3.4.1. Access to and understanding European statistics on Eurostat website
3.4.2. Release calendar
3.4.3. Metadata and methodological information
3.4.4. Twitter account
3.4.5. User support
3.5. Overall quality of Eurostat's data and services
3.6. Comparison with previous year
4. Messages from the users
Annexes: 1. Typology of statistical areas as used in the survey. 2. Number of answers by country of workplace. 3. Brief
methodological description on the analysis of the results. 4. Assessment of overall quality – more detailed
results.
2
1. Background – about the survey
Eurostat’s mission is to be the leading provider of high quality statistics on Europe. In order
to measure the degree to which it meets its obligations towards its users, Eurostat carried out
a general User Satisfaction Survey (USS) over the period of April – June 2016. It was based
on the agreed model questionnaire for the European Statistical System and was designed to
obtain a better knowledge about users, their needs and satisfaction with the services provided
by Eurostat. The first survey of this kind was held in 2007 and then repeated in 2009, 2011,
2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. The USS 2016 is, therefore, the eight of a general nature.
The present survey covered four main aspects:
information on types of users and uses of European statistics,
quality aspects,
trust in European statistics,
dissemination of statistics.
The survey was carried out online, with a link on Eurostat website. It was launched on 19
April and was open until 22 June. Email invitations were sent out to about 165 000 registered
Eurostat users.
A total of 3038 replies were received, far less than in 2014 and in 2015, and the lowest
number of replies since the survey started to be organised yearly in 2011. Although the
number of replies is still enough to draw meaningful conclusions, Eurostat will have to reflect
on how to try to attract more participants. The reasons for the declining number of
respondents could be the length of the questionnaire, although it was not increased in 2015,
the high frequency of the survey, which is a yearly survey since 2011 and the fact that the
previous survey was conducted few months later in 2014 and so less than one year had passed
when the new one was launched. The fact that the large majority of results are almost
unchanged from year to year, which makes the results less interesting, may also play a role.
Chart 01. Number of survey respondents, 2011 - 2016
Source: Eurostat 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
4247
3101 3279
4839
4447
3038
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
3
The questionnaire was similar to the one used in 2015, allowing for a comparative analysis
over time. It was also possible to compare the results of the survey with those of the previous
years for almost all questions. The only structural changes this year were in the dissemination
section of the questionnaire where two questions were combined and a new one added.
To obtain a better overview of types of users, different user groups were distinguished in the
survey: 1) students, academic and private users, 2) EU, international and political
organisations, 3) business, 4) government and 5) other users.
A separate specific survey was carried out for press and media users. However, some media
users might have nonetheless responded to the general user satisfaction survey. Their replies
would be classified under the category “other users”.
The results presented in this report constitute a summary of the most interesting and
compelling findings, supported by graphs. The report also shows the main differences
compared to the previous survey and an evolution of the users' opinion since 2011, date of the
first yearly and fully comparable survey.
2. Main outcomes
General aspects
In 2016 the survey was open on line for two months getting 3038 replies, 31.7% less
than in 2015 (4447).
Looking at the distribution of responses by user groups, students, academic and
private users accounted for the largest proportion (44.9%), followed by business
(24.1%), and government (19.0%). Replies from international organisations,
including EU institutions, and from other users both accounted for more than 5%. The
results remain very similar to the previous year.
Like in the past, respondents indicated that “Population and social conditions” and
“Economy and finance” were the two areas they used most frequently. The former
received from 13.8% to 19.8% of responses whereas the latter ranged from 15.9% to
19.4% across all user groups.
As in 2015, “research” (24.4%) and “general background information” (19.1%) were
the most common purposes for all users combined. However, the purposes of
statistical data use varied by groups of respondents reflecting different needs and
nature of work of each group.
More than two thirds of participants (69.5%) indicated European statistics to be either
“essential” or “important” for their work. Accounting for a breakdown by purposes,
statistical data was this time most significant for “preparing legislation”, where it was
indicated to be “essential” by 40.8% of respondents and “important” by 39.5%.
Almost one quarter of users (24.4%) stated they used European statistics in their daily
or weekly activities, 30.7% did soon a monthly basis and the remaining 44.8% at
other intervals.
4
Similarly to the previous year, Eurostat database stood out as the most popular source
of information with 74.8% of all respondents accessing it for their purposes. Half of
the users (50.2%) utilised Eurostat’s main tables. Database and main tables were
followed by Eurostat press releases, Statistics Explained and Statistics in Focus,
which accounted for respective shares of 28.6%, 27.9% and 27.0% of all users.
User assessment of the data sources (i.e. Eurostat's database and different types of
publications) was generally positive, passing the 60% of "very good/good"
judgements for practically all sources, with Statistics in Focus (65.1%), Statistics
Explained (64.7%) and Europe 2020 Strategy (62.7%) receiving the best scores.
Eurostat was interested to check if users continue to trust European statistics in a
period when European citizens sometimes persist to be sceptic about the role and
functioning of the EU institutions. As in previous years, responses were
overwhelmingly positive, with 93.8% of users stating they trusted European statistics
greatly or tended to trust them. Only 3.5% said they did not trust statistics and 2.7%
had no opinion.
Trust seems to be related with the importance and the perceived quality of statistics.
Those respondents, for which the statistics are of value, trust more the statistics than
those for whom statistics are not so important, who tend more often to not express an
opinion. The respondents who trust more European statistics are also more convinced
of their overall good quality.
Quality aspects
Overall quality
The level of satisfaction with the overall quality of European data remained high, with
59.2% of all users considering the quality to be “very good” or “good” (2.6% points
more than in 2015) and 20.9% considering it as “adequate”.
Chart 02. Assessment of overall data quality in 2015 and 2016
Source: Eurostat 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
At a more disaggregated level, “Economy and finance” again received the highest
positive evaluation (63.2% of “very good/good” answers). “Population and social
conditions” and “International trade” also passed the bar of 60%, with shares of
56.6%
59.2%
22.4%
20.9%
13.4%
13.6%
7.7%
6.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2015
2016 Very good/Good
Adequate
Poor/Very poor
No opinion
5
61.5% and 60.6%, respectively. These are the same three areas which constantly
outperform the average every year.
On the other side of the spectrum, "Science, technology and innovation",
“Environment statistics” and “Industry, trade and services" were among the ones
with lowest share of positive views on overall quality, with 54.2%, 55.1% and 55.1%,
respectively. Nevertheless, the differences between all statistical domains (excluding
“other statistics”) were smaller than in 2015.
The quality of Eurostat’s data fares very well compared with other statistical data
producers. The majority of participants saw the quality as better or same, resulting in
a combined share of 65.4%. Among other positive sides of Eurostat, users highlighted
better quality and reliability of the data provided, more complete, more timely and
harmonised data, better coverage and comparability, better metadata, friendly and
easier to use interface and better search engine, and the independence from national
politics.
Timeliness
On average 53.2% of users saw timeliness of European data as “very good” or
“good”, 24.0% as “adequate” and 15.6% as “poor” or “very poor”. Compared to 2015,
this constitutes a slightly larger share of the “very good/good” evaluations and slightly
smaller shares of “adequate” and of “poor/very poor” evaluations.
Chart 02. Assessment of overall timeliness in 2015 and 2016
Source: Eurostat 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
From a statistical domain perspective, “Economy and finance” was again rated as
having the best timeliness across all areas, followed this time by “Population and
social conditions” and “International trade”, accounting for 56.7%, 54.9% and 54.1%
of “very good/good” responses, respectively.
Looking at the user groups, 57.2% of respondents from EU, international and political
organisations rated the timeliness as “very good/good” and were closely followed by
government officials (56.0%). Businesses were the least enthusiastic (51.1%)
Completeness
51.4%
53.2%
23.5%
24.0%
16.8%
15.6%
8.3%
7.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2015
2016 Very good/good
Adequate
Poor/Very poor
No opinion
6
On average for all areas, 52.2% of users saw data completeness as “very good” or
“good”, 24.1% thought it was “adequate” and 15.6% perceived it as “poor” or “very
poor”.
Chart 04. Assessment of overall completeness in 2015 and 2016
Source: Eurostat 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
“Economy and finance” once again stood out as the best rated domain, followed by
“International trade” and "Population and social conditions" (56.2%, 54.5% and
54.1% of “very good/good” replies, respectively). The least performing area remained
“Regional statistics” with just a fifth (20.0%) of respondents stating completeness of
this domain was either “poor” or “very poor”. However, "Regional statistics" was also
the domain which improved most compared to 2015, getting closer to the results of
the others.
From the user group perspective, government officials were most positive about the
completeness of European data (55.8% of “very good/good” ratings).
Comparability
The average of “very good/good” responses across all areas was 50.5% this year,
21.8% saw comparability as “adequate” and 13.9% did not feel positive about it.
Chart 05. Assessment of overall comparability in 2015 and 2016
Source: Eurostat 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
49.3%
52.2%
25.1%
24.1%
16.0%
15.6%
9.6%
8.1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2015
2016 Very good/Good
Adequate
Poor/Very poor
No opinion
49.5%
50.5%
21.4%
21.8%
14.4%
13.9%
14.7%
13.8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2015
2016Very good/Good
Adequate
Poor/Very poor
No opinion
7
Once again, “Economy and finance” as well as “Populations and social conditions”
were among the highest rated domains with 55.2% and 51.3% of “very good” and
“good” shares respectively. For this quality dimension “Agriculture and fishery”
received the lowest share of positive responses; however, more than 2 in 5
respondents (44.6%) considered the comparability of this domain to be either “very
good” or “good”.
This year it was the EU, international and political organisations that were most
satisfied with the comparability of the data. 63.6% of them saw this quality aspect as
“very good” or “good”, an increase of 6.7% points compared to 2015.
Dissemination aspects
The overall satisfaction with the Eurostat website is in line with the other
dissemination related questions. The share of satisfied respondents, not counting those
not giving an opinion, is 60.3% with another 33.8% being partly satisfied. The share
of those not giving an opinion is now of 5.4%.
More than half of the respondents (53.7%) found it easy to access and to understand
the statistics on Eurostat website and another third (34.2%) partly easy. 7.8% were not
satisfied while the remaining 4.3% did not express an opinion.
As in previous years, respondents were very positive about the content of Eurostat
website. On average 18.4% of all users were very satisfied with the content and
another 46.4% thought it was good. This gives a combined 64.8% of positive
feedback which is highly valuable for Eurostat and very close to the results of 2015.
Respondents were less positive on the website’s technical characteristics, even if
some limited improvements could be registered. Just as in the past, overall
performance and speed as well as database extraction tools received relatively high
evaluations with respective shares of “very good/good” responses reaching 56.9% and
52.6%.
For other tools, like search facilities, navigation to required information and help
texts/ help facilities, persisting lower shares of satisfied respondents and/or relatively
higher shares of unhappy ones, confirm that these attributes still require further
attention and improvements.
User assessment of Eurostat's visualisation tools was rather positive, with shares of
respondents judging them as very good or good going from 57.4% for the widgets to
65.9% for the Infographics “Economic trends”. The percentage of respondents who
use and gave an opinion on the different tools is in some cases still low, below 30%
for few of them, but has increased by 4 to 6% points compared to 2015.
User assessment of Eurostat's mobile applications were similar to that of the
visualisation tools, going from with 54.7% of the respondents rating the Quiz
application as very good or good to 60.6% for the EU economy application. The
8
number of respondents who actually gave the rating was in this case still quite low,
between 8.4% and 11.3% for the different applications.
Users were asked for the first time this year to rate the information on microdata
access on Eurostat website. 39.1% of the respondents gave their opinions, indicating a
satisfaction rate in line with other questions related to the website, with 54.8% of
respondents judging the information on microdata access as very good or good,
another 35.3% as adequate and the remaining 9.9% being unsatisfied. In their
comments respondents seemed to consider not only the information on microdata
access but also the access procedure and the set of microdata available.
Users’ awareness of Eurostat’s release calendar, which provides information on the
dates and times of Euro indicators’ publications, remained relatively low, even if
increasing by 3% points compared to 2015. Less than a third of users seemed to be
aware of it (31.3%). Among user groups, government as well as EU, international and
political organisations were most informed, with the shares of aware users being
45.0% and 43.0%, respectively. However, a large part of the users who are aware of
the release calendar, are satisfied with its content (66.4%).
Metadata was utilised by almost a half of European data users (48.5%), and the share
of metadata users who find it easily accessible remained of more than a half (51.7%)
this year. Users were also generally satisfied with metadata sufficiency but slightly
less than in the past. On average 54.1% found metadata sufficient for their purposes
and another 40.8% partly sufficient. 5.1% stated metadata was not sufficient.
Out of all respondents who expressed their opinion, 58.1% saw the interest of the
Eurostat's Twitter feed as good or very good, just 1% point less than in 2015.
Leaving out those with no opinion or not aware of the user support function, the
degree of satisfaction with it remains the highest of all services, with 72.5% of the
respondents saying that they were either “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the
support service provided by Eurostat. The share of unsatisfied users was 7.6% this
year.
The level of overall satisfaction with Eurostat’s data and services was quite high with
65.3% of all respondents evaluating data and services as “very good” or “good”,
23.3% as “adequate” and only 3.9% as “poor” or “very poor”.
3. Results of the USS 2016
3.1 General information
3.1.1 Who uses Eurostat's European statistics?
Looking at the distribution of responses by user groups (Chart 1), students, academic and
private users accounted for the largest proportion (44.9%), followed by business (24.1%), and
government (19.0%). Replies from international organisations, including EU institutions, and
9
from other users both accounted for more than 5% of the total responses. The results remain
very similar to the previous year.
Chart 1. User groups, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
Throughout the last six years of the User Satisfaction Survey execution the distribution of the
different user groups remained largely similar (Chart 2). This guarantees that the results can
be compared through the years.
Chart 2. Distribution of respondents by user group, in %
Source: Eurostat 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
44.9%
24.1%
19.0%
6.6% 5.5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Students, academic andprivate users
Business Government EU, international andpolitical organisations
Others
46
24
18
6 6
46
23
17
8 6
43
25
19
8 5
44
25
19
6 6
44
25
19
6 6
45
24
19
7 6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Students, academic andprivate users
Business Government EU, international andpolitical organisations
Others
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
10
As in previous years, geographical distribution of European statistics’ users remained
strongly tilted towards the EU countries with 84.5% of respondents coming from the 28
Member States and remaining 15.5% from non-EU countries. On a country level, the biggest
proportion again came from Germany (11.2%), which was followed by Italy (9.0%), Belgium
(7.2%), Spain (7.1%) and France (7.0%). It is worth noting that relatively high percentage of
users coming from Belgium can be explained by their relationship to the European
institutions based in Brussels.
Participants were also asked to specify which statistics they used most frequently and given
an option to pick more than one answer. As seen from Chart 3, “Population and social
conditions” and “Economy and finance” remained the two dominating areas across all user
groups, except for business users. The former domain received from 13.8% to 19.8% of
responses whereas the latter ranged from 15.9% to 19.4% across user groups. For business
representatives, “Economy and finance” was found to be the most widely used domain
(18.0%), followed by “International trade” (15.6%), “Industry, trade and services” (14.7%)
and then “Population and social conditions” statistics (13.8%).
The least utilised statistics were “Environment”, “Agriculture and fishery” and “Science,
technology and innovation”, with approximate average shares of around 5%. When compared
to the results of last year, proportions remained roughly the same.
Chart 3. Use of European statistics by statistical domains and user groups, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
18.2
19.8
17.7
13.8
19.2
18.4
18.1
18.3
19.4
18.0
18.0
15.9
10.7
11.2
11.6
8.8
11.5
10.7
10.6
9.2
9.3
14.7
9.9
10.6
10.0
7.7
10.6
15.6
8.5
11.1
7.9
7.5
8.4
9.7
6.5
8.8
7.3
7.8
5.9
5.1
9.0
6.8
5.7
6.6
5.3
4.4
5.4
5.7
5.4
5.1
5.7
5.5
5.9
5.5
5.3
6.1
4.8
3.9
5.2
4.5
0.9
0.8
1.3
0.6
1.0
2.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All users
Students, academic and privateusers
EU, international and politicalorganisations
Business
Government
Others
Population and social conditions Economy and finance Indicators
Industry, trade and services International trade statistics Energy and transport
Regional statistics Environment statistics Agriculture and fishery statistics
Science, technology and innovation Other
11
3.1.2 To do what?
The users of European statistics were also asked to indicate the purpose of their interest in it.
Multiple responses were available. As shown in Chart 4, “research” (24.1%) and “general
background information” (19.1%) were the most common purposes for all users combined.
However, a closer look at the purposes reveals a different nature of statistical data use by
groups of respondents.
As in previous years, “research” remained the main purpose for students and academia.
Combined with the fact that this user group represents 44.9% of the overall pool of
respondents, it explains a large total share of “research” and its dominance compared to other
uses, despite the fact that it is not the primary purpose for other user groups.
Chart 4. Uses of European statistics by user groups, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
EU, international and political organisations and government users mostly used statistics as
“background information” with 17.6% and 24.3%, respectively. For businesses, “market
analysis” remains the most popular purpose (22.5%). These results are mostly in line with the
analysis of previous surveys.
3.1.2.1 How important are the statistics?
Looking at the importance of European statistics, more than two thirds of participants
(69.5%) indicated them to be either “essential” or “important” for their work (Chart 5).
18
19
15
16
36
24
17
24
17
18
18
19
13
6
23
7
8
12
8
7
11
10
12
10
13
14
8
15
7
9
8
14
7
17
7
9
4
2
11
3
4
5
10
3
2
3
2
3
1
3
4
4
1
3
5
3
1
2
3
2
2
4
1
5
1
2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Others
Government
Business
EU, international and politicalorganisations
Students, academic and private users
All users
Research General background information
Market analysis Econometric model building and forecasting
Monitoring or formulating policy Re-dissemination of statistical data
Decision-making in business Negotiations
Media use Other
Preparing legislation
12
Accounting for a breakdown by purposes, statistical data was most significant for “preparing
legislation”, where it was indicated to be “essential” by 40.8% of respondents and
“important” by 39.5%. "Econometric model building and forecasting", “Monitoring or
formulating policy” and "Re-dissemination of statistical data" also got combined shares of
"essential" and "important" close to or passing 80%.
As in the previous year, European statistics were considered least essential for “market
analysis”, “decision-making in business”, and “general background information” (24.6%,
23.4% and 23.4% share of responses, respectively).
Chart 5. Importance of statistics for different uses, in % (How do European statistics
influence your work?)
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
Chart 6 below shows the importance of statistics over time, throughout the period between
2011 and 2016. The importance of statistics remained high during this period, with around
two thirds of participants (62.9% to 69.5%) reporting them to be either “essential” or
“important” for their work, reaching its maximum in 2016.
22.7%
23.4%
23.4%
24.6%
30.5%
31.8%
36.0%
38.6%
38.9%
39.0%
40.8%
30.7%
34.7%
32.5%
41.9%
40.4%
41.9%
35.9%
33.2%
39.9%
42.6%
38.4%
39.5%
38.8%
42.6%
44.1%
34.7%
35.0%
27.6%
32.3%
30.8%
21.4%
18.6%
22.6%
19.7%
30.5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other
General background information
Decision-making in business
Market analysis
Research
Negotiations
Media use
Monitoring or formulating policy
Econometric model building and forecasting
Re-dissemination of statistical data
Preparing legislation
All purposes
Essential
Important
Less important
13
Chart 6. Importance of statistics (all purposes) 2011-2016
Source: Eurostat 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
3.1.2.2 How often are European statistics used?
Knowing the purpose of use and importance of statistical information, it is interesting to see
how frequently statistics were used. As Chart 7 shows, almost one quarter of users (24.4%)
stated they used European statistics in their daily or weekly activities, 30.7% did so on a
monthly basis and the remaining 44.8% at other intervals. When compared to the results of
the survey carried out for media users, statistical information was used more frequently by
press and media representatives, with a percentage of daily and weekly usage exceeding 80%.
Users from EU, international and political organisations remain, as in previous years, the
most frequent users of European data with 41.5% using them daily or weekly.
Chart 7. Frequency of use by user groups, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
62.9% 67.3% 67.5% 66.4% 66.5% 69.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
6.1%
17.0%
9.0%
6.9%
6.0%
3.9%
18.3%
24.5%
22.2%
23.1%
16.3%
16.1%
30.7%
23.5%
25.7%
35.6%
31.3%
30.0%
44.8%
35.0%
43.1%
34.4%
46.4%
50.0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
All users
EU, international and politicalorganisations
Others
Government
Business
Students, academic andprivate users
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
At otherintervals
14
The frequency also differed by statistical domains (Chart 8). Highest daily use was found in
the areas of “Economy and finance” (11.4%), “Indicators” (11.2%) and “Industry, trade and
services” (9.8%). On the opposite, least frequently utilised domains contained “Agriculture
and fishery”, “Environment” and “Science, Technology and Innovation”. The differences,
however, were rather small.
Chart 8. Frequency of use by statistical area, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
Chart 9 illustrates the trend of the frequency of use between 2011 and 2016. More
specifically, it shows the percentage of respondents who use Eurostat's statistics on daily,
weekly or monthly basis. Overall, the use of the statistics has slightly declined, the peak
being at 2012 and 2013 when two thirds of respondents (66.6% - 66.9%) used statistics at
least on a monthly basis.
9.4%
11.4%
11.2%
9.8%
9.7%
8.7%
8.3%
8.3%
6.8%
5.8%
5.4%
3.8%
23.3%
25.5%
24.5%
22.6%
21.8%
22.0%
23.0%
23.7%
20.6%
18.3%
19.9%
12.8%
30.2%
30.7%
31.1%
29.2%
31.8%
28.6%
29.8%
31.5%
28.4%
28.8%
32.8%
23.1%
37.1%
32.4%
33.2%
38.4%
36.6%
40.7%
38.9%
36.5%
44.3%
47.1%
41.9%
60.3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Average for all areas
Economy and finance
Indicators
Industry, trade and services
International trade statistics
Energy and transport
Population and social conditions
Regional statistics
Science, technology andinnovation
Environment statistics
Agriculture and fishery statistics
Other
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Otherintervals
15
Chart 9. Frequency of use 2011-2016
Source: Eurostat 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
3.1.3 Where are European statistics obtained from?
When asked to specify the source of retrieving European data (Chart 10), Eurostat database
stood out as the most popular source with 74.8% of all respondents accessing it. The share of
responses remained highest across all user groups; however, the database was the most
popular among government users (79.0%) followed very closely by business (78.6%).
With regard to other sources, half of the users (50.2%) used Eurostat’s main tables, which
were most popular with students, academic and private users (53.0%). Database and main
tables were followed by Eurostat press releases, Statistics Explained and Statistics in Focus,
which accounted for respective shares of 28.6%, 27.9% and 27.0% of all users. Eurostat
applications for mobile devices continue to be used by a quite small share of respondents,
which was also the case in the previous years. Government users were those using them
relatively more (4.3%).
65.0% 66.6% 66.9% 63.9% 62.9% 62.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
16
Chart 10. Sources of European statistics by user groups, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
Respondents were also asked to assess the quality of the sources. Highest evaluations were
received as in 2015 by Statistics in Focus (65.1%) and Statistics Explained (64.7%), followed
this year by Europe 2020 Strategy (62.7%). For all the other tools the rate of "very
good/good" replies were also at around 60% or above.
Chart 11. Assessment of quality of data sources, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Euro
stat
dat
abas
eac
cess
ible
fro
m it
sw
ebsi
te
Euro
stat
mai
n t
able
sac
cess
ible
fro
m it
sw
ebsi
te
Euro
stat
pre
ssre
leas
es
Stat
isti
cs E
xpla
ined
Stat
isti
cs in
Fo
cus
Oth
er E
uro
stat
pu
blic
atio
ns
Euro
stat
mic
ro d
ata
Tailo
r-m
ade
Euro
stat
dat
a
Euro
stat
vis
ual
isat
ion
too
ls
Euro
stat
mo
bile
ap
ps
(Co
un
try
Pro
file
s, E
UEc
on
om
y, Q
uiz
, My…
Oth
er p
rod
uct
s
All users
Students,academic andprivate users
EU,internationaland politicalorganisations
Business
Government
Others
59.8%
60.4%
61.5%
62.6%
62.7%
64.7%
65.1%
23.8%
22.8%
20.6%
20.6%
20.9%
18.5%
17.8%
16.4%
16.8%
17.9%
16.7%
16.4%
16.8%
17.1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Press releases
People in the EU
Quality of life
Regional yearbook
Europe 2020 strategy
Statistics Explained
Statistics in Focus
Very good/Good
Adequate
Poor/Very poor
17
Looking at the evolution over time of the assessment of the quality of data sources, a
substantial stability can be observed with small variations each year.
Chart 12. Assessment of quality of data sources, 2011-2016
Source: Eurostat 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
3.2 Information on quality aspects
In accordance with the Eurostat’s mission statement, quality considerations play a central role
in both its corporate management and day-to-day statistical operations. It is thus important to
find out how users assess the quality of the European statistics produced and disseminated by
Eurostat. In addition to the overall quality, the survey looked at three different aspects of
quality that are considered as the most important for Eurostat - timeliness, completeness and
comparability.
3.2.1 Overall quality
As in the past, this year evaluations were generally positive with almost 60% of users
viewing the quality of statistics as “very good” or “good”. As can be seen from Chart 13, the
level of satisfaction with the overall quality of European data remained high, with 59.2% of
all users considering the quality to be “very good” or “good” and 20.9% as “adequate”.
Compared to 2015, the share of those considering the overall quality as least good increased
of 2.6% points, with the strongest progression at around 5% points for regional statistics and
environment statistics, as shown in Chart 14.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Statistics In Focus
Statistics Explained
Regional Yearbook
Press releases
Europe 2020 strategy
18
Chart 13. Assessment of overall quality per statistical area, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
Chart 14. Difference in the assesment of overall quality per statistical area in 2015 and
2016, in % points
Source: Eurostat 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
38.5%
54.2%
55.1%
55.1%
55.2%
55.4%
55.4%
56.8%
60.6%
61.5%
63.2%
59.2%
14.1%
24.2%
23.0%
24.3%
23.4%
24.1%
24.7%
20.2%
21.2%
20.6%
17.8%
20.9%
17.9%
14.2%
15.2%
14.1%
16.3%
17.0%
13.3%
13.3%
13.3%
11.9%
14.1%
13.6%
29.5%
7.4%
6.8%
6.5%
5.1%
3.5%
6.5%
9.7%
4.9%
5.9%
4.9%
6.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Other
Science, technology and innovation
Environment statistics
Industry, trade and services
Regional statistics
Agriculture and fishery statistics
Energy and transport
Indicators
International trade statistics
Population and social conditions
Economy and finance
Average for all areas
Verygood/GoodAdequate
Poor/VerypoorNo opinion
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Verygood/GoodAdequate
Poor/VerypoorNo opinion
19
At a more disaggregated level, “Economy and finance” again received the highest positive
evaluation (63.2% of “very good/good” answers). “Population and social conditions” and
“International trade” also passed the bar of 60%, with shares of 61.5% and 60.6%,
respectively. It should be noted that these three areas have been the leaders every year.
“Economy and finance” continues to be the highest rated area across all quality dimensions.
Given the interest in economic and financial developments in Europe during the recent years
and the fact that this domain is used most frequently, high evaluations represent positive
views of European data users. A more detailed analysis of the domain revealed that “National
accounts, “Price statistics”,” and “Government finance statistics” came to the top of the list
receiving 67.0%, 62.8% and 62.2%, respectively, of “very good/good” assessments.
On the other side of the spectrum, "Science, technology and innovation", “Environment
statistics” and “Industry, trade and services" were among the ones with lowest share of
positive views on overall quality, with 54.2%, 55.1% and 55.1%, respectively. Nevertheless,
the differences between all statistical domains (excluding “other statistics”) were smaller than
in 2015.
When analysed by user groups, respondents from EU, international and political
organisations were this year for the first time the most positive about the overall data quality
with a percentage of “very good/good” responses reaching 66.9%. They were followed by the
government officials (63.4%) and students, academics and private users (59.2%).
Respondents from EU, international and political organisations are also the most positive
when judging the data timeliness and comparability, while those from government are so on
the data completeness.
Chart 15 shows that there has not been a lot of difference with the overall data assessment in
the period from 2011 to 2016, this year being close to the maximum of "very good/good"
replies for the all period.
Chart 15. Overall data quality 2011-2016
Source: Eurostat 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
57.3% 58.0% 57.6% 59.6% 56.6%
59.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
20
Given that there are several producers of European statistics, respondents were also asked to
compare the quality of Eurostat’s data with that of national statistical institutes (NSIs) and
other international organisations. The results are presented in Chart 16.
Chart 16. Comparison with other statistical data producers by user groups, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
As can be seen, the majority of participants consider the quality to be better or the same,
resulting in a combined share of 65.4%. Among other positive sides of Eurostat, users
highlighted better quality and reliability of the data provided, more complete, more timely
and harmonised data, better coverage and comparability, better metadata, friendly and easier
to use interface and better search engine, and the independence from national politics.
Less than one in ten of all users (7.2%) considered European data of a worse quality when
compared to other sources. Respondents mentioned shorter time series and old data
disappearing, limited coverage of non-EU sources, limited micro data and too much
aggregated data, data timeliness, less forecasts and unclear methodology as major drawbacks
due to which they may prefer other data sources. Some also said that other websites were
more user-friendly and clearer.
It is also worth noting that more than a quarter (27.4%) of the respondents did not have an
opinion on the issue, suggesting that a relatively large share of Eurostat statistics' users either
do not use other data sources or find it hard to formulate such comparisons.
3.2.2 Timeliness
The aspect of information timeliness reflects the length of time between its availability and
the event or phenomenon it describes. According to the results, which are presented in Chart
17, on average 53.2% of users saw timeliness of European data as “very good” or “good”,
24.0% as “adequate” and 15.6% as “poor” or “very poor. Timeliness remains the quality
dimension, of the three investigated, with the best performance.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Better Same Worse No opinion
All users
Students, academic andprivate users
EU, international andpolitical organisations
Business
Government
Others
21
From a statistical domain perspective, “Economy and finance” was again rated as having the
best timeliness across all areas, followed this time by “Population and social conditions” and
“International trade”, accounting for 56.7%, 54.9% and 54.1% of “very good/good”
responses, respectively.
Chart 17. Assessment of timeliness per statistical area, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
Looking at the user groups, 57.2% of respondents from EU, international and political
organisations rated the timeliness as “very good/good” and were closely followed by
government officials (56.0%). Businesses were the least enthusiastic (51.1%).
From a timeliness perspective, 58.0% of all users considered Eurostat's timeliness to be better
than or the same as timeliness of national statistical offices in the member countries. Last
year the rate was 55.1%. Those perceiving timeliness as worse accounted for 14.8% versus
15.7% in 2015.
A small increase in the assessment of the overall timelines from 2015 can be seen in Chart
18. In fact, as Chart 18 demonstrates, this year the share of respondents reporting the
timeliness to be very good or good was quite close to that of 2014, which was a peak year in
terms of the positive assessment of this indicator.
25.6%
48.3%
48.8%
49.4%
50.0%
50.3%
50.8%
52.2%
54.1%
54.9%
56.7%
53.2%
26.9%
25.7%
26.5%
27.1%
27.6%
24.7%
26.3%
23.7%
25.3%
23.8%
21.6%
24.0%
17.9%
19.1%
17.9%
17.6%
16.4%
17.4%
15.2%
13.8%
15.3%
14.3%
15.4%
15.6%
29.5%
6.9%
6.8%
5.9%
6.0%
7.5%
7.8%
10.3%
5.3%
7.0%
6.3%
7.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Other
Regional statistics
Energy and transport
Science, technology and innovation
Agriculture and fishery statistics
Industry, trade and services
Environment statistics
Indicators
International trade statistics
Population and social conditions
Economy and finance
Average for all areas
Very good/Good
Adequate
Poor/Very poor
No opinion
22
Chart 18. Assessment of overall timeliness in 2011-2016
Source: Eurostat 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
The slight increase of “very good” and “good” responses this year is further illustrated by
Chart 19 which shows that every statistical domain received more “very good/good”
responses in 2016, compared to 2015. It can also be seen that the relatively bigger increases
were around 4% points for regional statistics, environment statistics and Industry, trade and
services.
Chart 19. Differences in the assessment of data timeliness between 2015 and 2016 in %
points
Source: Eurostat 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
53.2% 51.3% 50.9%
53.7% 51.4% 53.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Verygood/good
Adequate
Poor/Verypoor
23
3.2.3 Completeness
Completeness is the extent to which all statistics that are needed are available. It is usually
described as a measure of the amount of available data from a statistical system compared to
the amount that was expected to be obtained. Chart 20 presents the results of user views on
data completeness in 2016.
On average for all areas, 52.2% of users saw data completeness as “very good” or “good”,
24.1% thought it was “adequate” and 15.6% perceived it as “poor” or “very poor”. “Economy
and finance” once again stood out as the best rated domain, followed by “International trade”
and "Population and social conditions" (56.2%, 54.5% and 54.1% of “very good/good”
replies, respectively). The least performing area remained “Regional statistics” with a fifth
(20.0%) of respondents stating completeness of this domain was either “poor” or “very poor”.
However, "Regional statistics" was also the domain which improved most compared to 2015,
getting closer to the results of the others.
Chart 20. Assessment of completeness of European statistics per statistical area, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
From the user group perspective, government officials were most positive about the
completeness of European data (55.8% of “very good/good” ratings). The least satisfied
group were business users, who accounted for slightly less than half of positive responses
(49.6%).
As Chart 22 shows, compared to 2015, there was a small increase (2.9%) in the “very good”
and “good” assessments of data completeness this year. Again, as can be seen in Chart 21, the
differences in the user satisfaction with this indicator in the last six years were very small but
2016 was the year with the best result.
32.1%
46.3%
46.5%
47.0%
47.7%
49.6%
49.6%
49.8%
54.1%
54.5%
56.2%
52.2%
19.2%
27.1%
27.6%
27.3%
25.2%
25.1%
26.1%
24.7%
22.7%
25.3%
22.5%
24.1%
17.9%
20.0%
16.1%
17.1%
18.4%
13.6%
18.3%
17.2%
15.5%
14.4%
14.3%
15.6%
30.8%
6.6%
9.7%
8.6%
8.7%
11.7%
6.0%
8.3%
7.6%
5.7%
7.0%
8.1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other
Regional statistics
Environment statistics
Energy and transport
Science, technology and innovation
Indicators
Agriculture and fishery statistics
Industry, trade and services
Population and social conditions
International trade statistics
Economy and finance
Average for all areas
Verygood/Good
Adequate
Poor/Verypoor
No opinion
24
Chart 21. Assessment of overall completeness in 2011-2016
Source: Eurostat 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
A closer look to the different statistical domains again reveals slight increases in the share of
“very good” and “good” responses between 2015 and 2016 in all the areas, reaching 5%
points or more for regional statistics and industry, trade and services.
Chart 22. Differences in the assessment of data completeness between 2015 and 2016 in
% points
Source: Eurostat 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
51.4% 49.6% 49.9% 50.9% 49.3%
52.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Verygood/good
Adequate
Poor/Verypoor
No opinion
25
3.2.4 Comparability
Comparability is the extent to which differences between statistics from different
geographical areas, non-geographic domains or over time can be attributed to differences
between the true values of statistics.
As seen from Chart 23, an average of “very good/good” responses across all areas was 50.5%
this year. 21.8% saw comparability as “adequate” and 13.9% did not feel positive about it.
Once again, “Economy and finance” as well as “Populations and social conditions” were
among the highest rated domains with 55.2% and 51.3% of “very good” and “good” shares
respectively. For this quality dimension “Agriculture and fishery” received the lowest share
of positive responses; however, more than 2 in 5 respondents (44.6%) considered the
comparability of this domain to be either “very good” or “good”.
This year it was the EU, international and political organisations that were most satisfied with
the comparability of the data. 63.6% of them saw this quality aspect as “very good” or
“good”, an increase of 6.7% points compared to 2015.
Chart 23. Assessment of comparability of European statistics per statistical area, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
There has been a minimal (1.0% points) increase in the assessment of the overall
comparability compared to last year (Chart 25), but enough to make 2016 the year with the
highest user satisfaction in the last six years, as shown in Chart 24.
30.8%
44.6%
45.3%
45.9%
46.3%
47.9%
48.6%
49.4%
50.5%
51.3%
55.2%
50.5%
14.1%
28.6%
25.6%
25.9%
23.3%
22.5%
23.5%
21.2%
21.6%
22.5%
18.5%
21.8%
17.9%
15.4%
14.8%
13.2%
15.2%
13.8%
15.5%
12.9%
15.0%
13.3%
14.1%
13.9%
37.2%
11.4%
14.2%
15.0%
15.2%
15.8%
12.3%
16.5%
12.9%
13.0%
12.3%
13.8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Other
Agriculture and fishery statistics
Science, technology and innovation
Energy and transport
Environment statistics
Industry, trade and services
Regional statistics
Indicators
International trade statistics
Population and social conditions
Economy and finance
Average for all areas
Very good/Good
Adequate
Poor/Very poor
No opinion
26
Chart 24. Assessment of overall comparability in 2011-2016
Source: Eurostat 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
The slight increase of “very good” and “good” responses between years 2015 and 2016 is
mirrored in most of the statistical domains and it is particularly evident for regional statistics
where it reached almost 5% points (Chart 25).
Chart 25. Differences in the assessment of data comparability between 2015 and 2016 in
% points
Source: Eurostat 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
48.1% 47.5% 48.9% 50.3% 49.5% 50.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Verygood/goodAdequate
Poor/VerypoorNo opinion
27
3.3 Trust in European statistics
In a period when European citizens sometimes persist to be sceptic about the role and
functioning of the EU institutions, it was interesting to check if users continue to trust the
statistics produced by Eurostat. Results are presented in Chart 26.
As in previous years, responses were overwhelmingly positive, with 93.8% of users stating
they trusted European statistics greatly or tended to trust them. Only 3.5% said they did not
trust statistics and 2.7% had no opinion.
Chart 26. Trust in European statistics, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
Despite the potential bias that comes from the fact that Eurostat's data users should generally
trust the data they use, the constantly high rate of positive answers over time demonstrates a
very good and encouraging sign on the confidence of users in the statistics disseminated by
Eurostat.
Chart 27. Trust in European statistics by user groups, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
93.8%
3.5% 2.7%
Trust them greatly / Tend to trustthem
Tend not to trust them / Distrustthem greatly
No opinion
94
96
95
94
92
90
4
1
2
4
5
6
3
3
3
3
2
4
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
All users
Government
EU, international and
political organisations
Students, academic andprivate users
Business
Others
Trust themgreatly / Tend totrust them
Tend not to trustthem / Distrustthem greatly
No opinion
28
When looking at the distribution of responses by user groups (Chart 27), the share of
respondents trusting European statistics is very similar for all groups, none, except others,
going below 92%.
Looking at the responses, some of the reasons while people trust the statistics are that they
are based on harmonised methodology and that there are few errors or discrepancies, and in
the cases where they occur, they are detected, corrected and/or explained. The fact that
Eurostat is professional and is not politically influenced also helped to gain user trust.
As in past years, the most recurrent comment of those few who tend not to trust European
statistics is because they depend on national statistics. Some then pointed out discrepancies
with national data and reported implausible data and errors. Few also complained about the
difficulty to interpret statistical legislation.
This year users were also explicitly asked to suggest ways to improve trust. Common
suggestions included more checks and better quality control on the data provided by the
countries and more transparency in the methodology used. Few also suggested giving more
feedback in case of errors in the database, more data breakdowns, so users could make their
own calculations, and links to the data of the NSIs for checking and getting more details.
Between 2012 and 2016 there has been a continuous but very small decrease in trust in
European statistics of 1.5% points over the 5 year period (Chart 28).
Chart 28. Trust in European statistics in 2012-2016, in %
Source: Eurostat 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
This year to deepen our analysis on the trust in statistics, we have checked whether there is
some relation between importance, trust and perceived quality of statistics. As can be seen in
Chart 29 the degree of trust in European statistics depends on the importance that the
statistics have for the users. Those respondents, for which the statistics are of value, trust
more the statistics than those for whom statistics are not so important, who tend more often to
not express an opinion.
95.3% 94.9% 94.4% 94.2% 93.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
29
Chart 29. Trust in European statistics by importance, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
The respondents who trust more European statistics are also more convinced of their overall
good quality, as it appears in Chart 30. In particular those respondents who trust European
statistics greatly are 14.2% points more satisfied with the data quality than the average of all
users, while the few respondents who tend not to trust or distrust greatly the statistics, are also
much more critical towards their quality.
Chart 30. Assessment of overall quality of European statistics by trust, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
94
96
95
93
79
73
4
3
2
5
8
7
3
1
3
2
14
20
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Average
They are essential
They are important
They are of value asbackground information
They are of minor importance
They are of no use
Trust themgreatly / tend totrust them
Tend not to trustthem / distrustthem greatly
No opinion
59.2%
73.4%
50.5%
17.9%
20.7%
31.4%
20.9%
11.1%
29.3%
33.9%
3.3%
18.4%
13.6%
11.1%
13.9%
36.5%
67.4%
12.4%
6.2%
4.4%
6.3%
11.7%
8.7%
37.8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Average all users
Trust them greatly
Tend to trust them
Tend not to trust them
Distrust them greatly
No opinion
VeryGood/GoodAdequate
Poor/VerypoorNo opinion
30
3.4 Information on dissemination aspects
This section covers a number of aspects concerning dissemination of European statistics
(access to the European statistics, content and characteristics of Eurostat website, release
calendar and user support provided by Eurostat).
In 2015 users were asked the specific question on satisfaction with the "new Eurostat website
opened in December 2014". It was replaced this year by a more general question on the
satisfaction with the "Eurostat website" which was targeted to assess the more global level of
satisfaction of the overall Eurostat dissemination offer. Indeed, for consumers of European
statistics the term "Eurostat website" groups the various dissemination products and tools
Eurostat publishes via the website. The degree of satisfaction expressed is 60.3% satisfied
and 33.8% partly satisfied, as presented in Chart 31. The overall satisfaction is in line with
other dissemination related questions which remain generally stable.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that in the question on the "changes in perception of the
overall quality of data and services provided by Eurostat", the website was the item with the
highest share of respondents (20.3%) perceiving that it had improved compared to the
previous year. Another striking phenomenon was noticed in the parallel survey for media
users. The satisfaction rate for the "easiness to access the statistics on Eurostat website" went
up by 17.5% points. This could be partly explained by the fact that the media survey in 2015
was performed early in the year and media users had not had enough time to get used to the
new website released in December 2014.
Government had the highest rate of “satisfied” responses (65.8%) with the Eurostat website
while businesses were the least happy (56.0%).
Chart 31. User satisfaction with Eurostat website, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
60.3%
65.8%
61.1%
60.5%
58.2%
56.0%
33.8%
29.5%
30.2%
34.9%
34.9%
35.7%
5.9%
4.7%
8.7%
4.7%
6.9%
8.3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Average all users
Government
Others
Students, academic and privateusers
EU, international and politicalorganisations
Business
Yes
Partly
No
31
3.4.1 Access to and understanding of European statistics on Eurostat Website
In 2016 the two questions on easiness of access to European statistics and of understanding
them were combined into one, to make space for a new question in this section while not
increasing the total length of the questionnaire. Many users have asked in the past to try to
shorten rather than make the questionnaire longer.
More than half of the respondents (53.7%) found it easy to access and to understand the
statistics on Eurostat website and another third (34.2%) partly easy. 7.8% were not satisfied
while the remaining 4.3% did not express an opinion.
A comparison with the results of the two separate questions of 2015, which had known then
their best result because of the effect of the new website, is not completely sound, but the
present results are higher than the past ones for the access to European statistics, which were
close to 50% or less and lower than those on understanding such statistics, which were close
to 60% or more.
Chart 32. Assessment of the access to and understanding of European statistics, in % (Is
it easy to access and to understand European statistics?)
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
Users were also asked to evaluate the content of Eurostat’s database. As in previous years,
responses were very positive (Chart 33). On average 18.4% of all users were very satisfied
with the content and another 46.4% thought it was good. This gives a combined 64.8% of
positive feedback which is highly valuable for Eurostat and very close to the results of 2015.
Respondents from EU, international and political organisations had this year the highest rates
of “good/very good” responses ahead of government representatives (71.5% and 70.8%
respectively).
53.7%
34.2%
7.8%
4.3%
Yes
Partly
No
No opinion
32
Chart 33. Assessment of Eurostat website content by user groups, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
Looking at the five-year period (Chart 34), one can notice that there was a peak in
satisfaction in 2012 which proved difficult to replicate afterwards. However, the difference
between the peak figure and the current one is only around 3% points.
Chart 34. Eurostat website content 2011-2016
Source: Eurostat 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
In another question, users were requested to judge its technical characteristics (Chart 35).
Results are very similar to 2015 and uneven. Some technical characteristics, like performance
and speed or database extraction tools get more than half of "very good/good" judgements
(56.9% and 52.6% respectively) while for others like the help texts and facilities or the search
facilities, the share of satisfied users does not reach 40% and even without taking into
account those not giving an opinion, it would not reach 50%. It can be deduced that these
attributes still require further attention and improvements. In the case of the alert and
notification mechanisms, a large 42.8% of the respondents did not give an opinion as many
do not use or do not need this service. Such share is anyway decreasing compared to the past.
18.4%
29.0%
19.6%
19.0%
13.0%
19.8%
46.4%
42.5%
51.2%
47.1%
44.3%
38.3%
27.2%
20.0%
24.0%
26.9%
32.2%
27.5%
5.3%
5.5%
3.1%
4.5%
7.0%
10.8%
2.8%
3.0%
2.1%
2.5%
3.6%
3.6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
All users
EU, international and political organisations
Government
Students, academic and private users
Business
Others
Very good Good Satisfactory Poor / Very poor No opinion
63.8% 68.0% 63.8% 63.0% 65.3% 64.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
33
Chart 35. Assessment of technical characteristics of Eurostat website, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
Chart 36 shows that the results have not changed much over time, even if for some tools the
share of satisfied users is the largest this year.
Chart 36. Assessment of technical characteristics of Eurostat website 2011-2016
Source: Eurostat 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 20215 and 2016 user satisfaction survey
56.9%
52.6%
49.2%
39.9%
38.6%
28.0%
24.3%
24.8%
27.3%
28.9%
30.4%
19.8%
14.2%
15.0%
19.6%
17.0%
20.1%
9.4%
4.5%
7.6%
3.9%
14.2%
10.9%
42.8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Performance / Speed
Database extraction tools
Navigation to required info
Help texts / Help facilities
Search facilities
Alert and notification
Very good / Good
Adequate
Poor / Very poor
No opinion
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Performance/speed
Database extraction tools
Navigation
Search facilities
Help
Alert and notification
34
The following questions were to rate Eurostat's visualisation tools and Eurostat's mobile
applications. The satisfaction with the former indicator is presented in the Chart 37, and is
generally very positive, with more than two thirds of respondents (67.3%) seeing the highest-
rated tool – Infographics “Economic trends” as very good or good, followed closely by
infographics "Young Europeans" and Infographics “Quality of life” (65.9% and 64.1% “very
good/good” responses respectively). Even the least-rated tool – Widgets – was rated as very
good or good by 57.4% of the respondents who have used it and who expressed an opinion.
Chart 37. Assessment of Eurostat visualisation tools
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
It is worth noting that there is a considerable difference between all the survey respondents,
the respondents who used Eurostat's visualisation tools, and the respondents who used these
tools and chose to express an opinion. As demonstrated in Chart 38, 34.7% to 49.0% of the
survey respondents used the different visualisation tools, Statistics Illustrated – Regional
Statistics being the most widely utilised tool, followed by Infographics “Economic trends”
(46.9%). However, as it can be seen in the same chart, the percentage of users who actually
gave their opinion in the question concerned was about 7 - 10% points smaller than the
number of tool users for each of the visualisation tools. In some cases, namely Inflation
dashboard, Infographics “Young Europeans” and Widgets, this meant that the assessment
was given by less than 30% of users who filled in the survey. While such percentages
represent a reasonable absolute number of respondents, the differences of how many users
expressed an opinion is something to take into account when making comparisons between
the assessments of the different tools. It should also be noted that the percentages of
respondents who use the tools and give an opinion have increased by 4 – 6% point compared
to 2015 for all tools, as shown in Chart 39.
67.3%
65.9%
64.1%
62.8%
62.7%
62.6%
61.7%
60.9%
60.6%
59.3%
57.4%
22.7%
24.0%
24.7%
28.0%
26.1%
25.7%
27.3%
26.4%
27.3%
27.7%
30.5%
10.1%
10.1%
11.2%
9.1%
11.2%
11.7%
11.0%
12.8%
12.0%
13.1%
12.1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Infographics - "Economictrends"
Infographics - "YoungEuropeans"
Infographics - "Quality oflife"
Themes in the spotlightwebpage
Statistics illustrated -Inflation statistics
Statistical atlas
My country in a bubble
Statistics illustrated -Regional statistics
Inflation dashboard
Statistics illustrated -EU2020 statistics
Widgets
Very good/ Good
Adequate
Poor / Very poor
35
Chart 38. Users of Eurostat visualisation tools
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
Chart 39. Users expressing an opinion on Eurostat visualisation tools in 2015 and 2016
Source: Eurostat 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
41.0% 39.2%
36.5% 36.3% 35.3% 33.9% 31.6% 30.6% 29.9% 29.6%
25.2%
49.0% 46.9%
45.2% 44.5% 43.6% 42.1% 40.0% 40.3% 38.7% 37.4%
34.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Stat
isti
csill
ust
rate
d -
Reg
ion
al s
tati
stic
s
Info
grap
hic
s -
"Eco
no
mic
tre
nd
s"
Stat
isti
csill
ust
rate
d -
EU2
02
0 s
tati
stic
s
Stat
isti
cal a
tlas
Stat
isti
csill
ust
rate
d -
Infl
atio
n s
tati
stic
s
Info
grap
hic
s -
"Qu
alit
y o
f lif
e"
My
cou
ntr
y in
ab
ub
ble
Them
es
in t
he
spo
tlig
ht
we
bp
age
Infl
atio
nd
ash
bo
ard
Info
grap
hic
s -
"Yo
un
g Eu
rop
ean
s"
Wid
gets
Usersexpressingan opinion
Usersexpressingan opinion +users withno opinion
41.0% 39.2% 36.5% 36.3% 35.3% 33.9%
31.6% 30.6% 29.9% 29.6% 25.2%
37.4% 35.8% 32.2% 32.6% 31.4%
29.0%
0.0% 0.0%
24.3% 24.7%
18.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Stat
isti
csill
ust
rate
d -
Reg
ion
al…
Info
grap
hic
s -
"Eco
no
mic
tre
nd
s"
Stat
isti
csill
ust
rate
d -
EU2
02
0…
Stat
isti
cal a
tlas
Stat
isti
csill
ust
rate
d -
Infl
atio
n…
Info
grap
hic
s -
"Qu
alit
y o
flif
e"
My
cou
ntr
y in
a b
ub
ble
Them
es
in t
he
spo
tlig
ht
web
pag
e
Infl
atio
nd
ash
bo
ard
Info
grap
hic
s -
"Yo
un
gEu
rop
ean
s"
Wid
gets
2016
2015
36
User assessment of Eurostat's mobile applications were similar to that of the visualisation
tools, going from with 54.7% of the respondents rating the Quiz application as very good or
good to 60.6% for the EU economy application (Chart 40).
Chart 40. Assessment of Eurostat mobile applications
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
As chart 41 demonstrates, there is an even bigger gap between the overall number of survey
respondents and the users actually expressing an opinion on this specific subject. Among the
survey respondents, between 14.8% and 17.5% appear to have used each of them (calculated
by adding the users who rated the application and the users who stated that they have no
opinion). The number of respondents who actually gave the rating was between 8.4% and
11.3% for the different applications, not increasing much since 2015 and again indicating that
some caution is needed when interpreting the results.
Chart 41. Users of Eurostat mobile applications
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
60.6%
60.1%
55.3%
54.7%
26.0%
26.5%
25.7%
30.9%
13.5%
13.4%
19.0%
14.5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
EU economy
Country profiles
My region
Quiz
Very good/ Good
Satisfactory
Poor / Very poor
11.3% 10.8% 8.4% 9.3%
17.5% 17.0% 14.8% 15.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Co
un
try
pro
file
s
EUec
on
om
y
Qu
iz
My
regi
on
Users expressing anopinion
Users expressing anopinion + users withno opinion
37
Questioned on the problems they encountered or on what they would like to improve in the
website, respondents gave many useful comments, which include the following. A lot of
respondents still found it rather difficult to find data, especially for new users or those who do
not use the webpage daily. Some felt that a clear overview was missing and that titles,
definitions and units were not always clear. The size of the database and the high level of
detail of data were also seen as a drawback by some users who found it hard to find the
specific data they needed.
Regarding data search, there were users dissatisfied with the search engine, some of whom
would have preferred to a search targeted exclusively to databases rather than the whole
website. Search by keywords was also difficult for a number of users. Respondents also
reported difficulties in understanding definitions and metadata for the users who are not
statisticians themselves.
Other recurrent comments referred to the poor timeliness of the data or to the difficulty to
find old data. Several reported problems with the changes in the database, which are not
always clearly explained and on which users are not informed. Other problematic issues are
considered the gaps in the data, also due to confidentiality, and the fact that the website is not
fully multilingual.
One specific technical drawback often mentioned is that the Data Explorer does not support
multiple windows or queries in one session. More critical comments were given on the
complexity of data extraction and the limited choices that the user has in the process. Finally,
some put on their wish list to have more estimate and to be notified by e-mail when data are
revised.
To complete the section of the survey on the website, users were asked for the first time this
year to rate the information on microdata access on Eurostat website. 39.1% of the
respondents gave their opinions, indicating a satisfaction rate in line with other questions
related to the website, with 54.8% of respondents judging the information on microdata
access as very good or good, another 35.3% as adequate and the remaining 9.9% being
unsatisfied, as shown in Chart 42. As it could be expected, given that the question concerned
access for scientific purposes, the response rate was higher for students, academic and private
users, with 47.8% of them giving an opinion, versus 32.1% for the other groups put together.
38
Chart 42. Assessment of the information on microdata access services on Eurostat
website, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
Government officials were the most content with this service with 61.2% of very good and
good opinions, and respondents from EU, international and political organisations as well as
students, academic and private users were also slightly more satisfied than the average
(55.2% and 55.1% respectively).
In their comments respondents considered not only the information on microdata access but
also the access procedure and the set of microdata available. They declared to appreciate the
service, good and useful to create personal statistics. However, several pointed out that it is
difficult to receive an answer when asking for microdata and the procedure for getting access
is too complicate and long. On this it can be noted that when getting a request Eurostat has to
verify the criteria laid down in the applicable Regulation, which usually takes about one
week. A few respondents said that they would like to get microdata also for other topics than
those available.
3.4.2 Release calendar
When asked about their awareness of Eurostat’s release calendar (Chart 43), which provides
information on the dates and times of Euro indicators’ publications, less than a third of users
seemed to be aware of it (31.3%), but with a share increasing by 3% points compared to
2015. Among user groups, government as well as EU, international and political
organisations were most informed, with the shares of aware users being 45.0% and 43.0%,
respectively. A possible explanation could be the fact that these users are interested in the
newest data and try to get them as soon as they are available. This year, unlike in 2015, it was
business who were the least informed, with only 25.4% of them being aware of the calendar.
54.8% 35.3%
9.9%
Very good / Good
Adequate
Poor / Very poor
39
Chart 43. Awareness of the release calendar among user groups, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
Within the six-year surveying period, 2016 is the year with the highest degree of awareness.
Chart 44. Awareness of release calendar 2011-2016
Source: Eurostat 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
Those who were aware of the calendar were also asked to assess whether the release calendar
had sufficient and relevant information to fulfil their needs (Chart 45). About two thirds of
the respondents (66.4%), a share close to 2015, gave positive opinions, indicating that
Eurostat release calendar continues to be of great value for those who are aware of it and use
it for their needs. 20.7% of respondents said the calendar satisfied their needs partly.
31.3%
45.0%
43.0%
35.9%
26.3%
25.4%
68.7%
55.0%
57.0%
64.1%
73.7%
74.6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
All users
Government
EU, international andpolitical organisations
Others
Students, academic andprivate users
Business
Aware
Notaware
26.6% 30.9% 29.7% 29.2% 28.3% 31.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
40
Chart 45. Assessment of sufficiency and relevance of information in the release calendar
by user groups, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
Just as in 2015, government officials were among the most satisfied users with 77.2% of
“yes” replies. Businesses were this time the least satisfied, the share of the satisfied users in
this group going down by 8.5 % points (Chart 46).
Chart 46. Differences in the assessment of sufficiency and relevance of information in
the release calendar by user groups between 2015 and 2016, in % points
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
66.4%
77.2%
65.1%
64.1%
63.3%
57.5%
20.7%
15.4%
17.4%
23.1%
20.0%
25.3%
2.8%
2.3%
4.7%
2.2%
10.0%
1.6%
10.0%
5.0%
12.8%
10.6%
6.7%
15.6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
All users
Government
EU, international andpolitical organisations
Students, academic andprivate users
Others
Business
Yes
Partly
No
Noopinion
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
All users Government EU,internationaland political
organisations
Students,academic andprivate users
Others Business
Yes
Partly
No
No opinion
41
In their comments users expressed the wish to have more topics covered by the release
calendar, including more social statistics, to include in the calendar the list of all data for
which updates or releases are expected, and to respect the publications dates.
After growing steadily since 2011, user satisfaction with the sufficiency and relevance of
information in the release calendar seem to have stabilised this year (Chart 47).
Chart 47. Sufficiency and relevance of information in the release calendar 2011-2016
Source: Eurostat 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
3.4.3 Metadata and methodological information
Eurostat publishes metadata in order to provide better background information about the data
(definitions, methodology, classifications, nomenclature, etc.) and to explain their limitations.
Chart 48. Use of metadata by user groups, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
56.5% 58.4% 62.8% 64.2%
67.6% 66.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
48.5%
62.8%
61.0%
48.1%
43.7%
35.7%
51.5%
37.2%
39.0%
51.9%
56.3%
64.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All users
Government
EU, internationaland political…
Students, academicand private users
Others
Business
Yes
No
42
Users were asked to indicate whether they used metadata provided by Eurostat. As seen from
Chart 48, metadata was utilised by almost a half of European data users (48.5%), slightly
more than in 2015 (47.4%). This year, it was users from the government who used metadata
the most, followed by EU, international and political organisations. In these groups shares of
metadata users reached 62.8% and 61.0%, respectively. As in previous years, business users
were using metadata the least (35.7%).
Within the last six years, the most notable change in the use of metadata was a 7.4% points
increase in 2012, the only year when it passed the share of 50%. Since then, it has remained
substantially stable at a bit less than half of the respondents.
Chart 49. Usage of metadata 2011-2016
Source: Eurostat 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
Metadata users were also asked about their accessibility. Results of Chart 50 reveal that this
year the share of respondents who find it easily accessible has remained at slightly more than
a half (51.7%). A share of 41.5% thought it was partly easy to find and 6.8% experienced
difficulties.
Chart 50. Metadata accessibility, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
43.5% 50.9% 48.9% 48.0% 47.4% 48.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
51.7%
41.5%
6.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Yes Partly No
43
The overall share of users who find metadata easily accessible did not change much between
2015 and 2016, even if some larger variations cold be observed, up or down, for some user
groups, as demonstrated in Chart 51.
Chart 51. Differences in the assessment of the accessibility of metadata between 2015
and 2016, in % points
Source: Eurostat 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
As can be seen from Chart 52, after the peak registered in 2015, which could have been due
to the new website, user satisfaction with this aspect of the metadata, even if slightly
decreasing, remained in 2016 at a higher level than in previous years.
Chart 52. Easiness of access to metadata 2011-2016
Source: Eurostat 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
Out of different types of metadata, metadata explaining statistics was the most popular (Chart
53). 88.2% of respondents that used metadata specified that they utilised that type of
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
Students,academic andprivate users
EU,internationaland political
organisations
Business Government Others All users
Yes
Partly
No
45.3% 49.6% 50.9% 47.4%
52.8% 51.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
44
metadata. Metadata describing statistical production and metadata on quality were used by
47.2% and 31.6% of users respectively. These proportions are lower than last year, with a
decrease of 2.5% points for metadata explaining statistics; 4.7% points for metadata describing
statistical production; 3.9% points for metadata on quality (Chart 54).
Chart 53. Metadata use by types of metadata and user groups, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
Chart 54. Usage of metadata in 2015 and 2016
Source: Eurostat 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Metadata explaining the statistics Metadata describing thestatistical production
Metadata on quality
All users
Students, academicand private users
EU, internationaland politicalorganisations
Business
Government
Others
90.7%
51.9%
35.5%
88.2%
47.2%
31.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Met
adat
aex
pla
inin
gth
e st
atis
tics
Met
adat
ad
esc
rib
ing
the
stat
isti
cal
pro
du
ctio
n
Met
adat
a o
nq
ual
ity
2015
2016
45
Metadata users were also generally satisfied with its sufficiency (Chart 55). On average
54.1% - slightly less than last year - found metadata sufficient for their purposes and another
40.8% partly sufficient. 5.1% stated metadata was not sufficient.
Apart from being most popular with all users, metadata explaining statistics was also the one
evaluated the best. 56.6% of respondents said it was sufficient and adequate for their needs.
Chart 55. Assessment of sufficiency of the different types of metadata, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
While some users reaffirmed in their comments that metadata are good and have improved,
others still found them not easy to access, not clear enough, too long or too technical. The
main suggested further improvements included to give more detailed information on the
production of statistics and the used methodology, to clarify better the main concepts used, to
better facilitate comparability among countries and to always update the metadata in case of
changes in the methodology.
As Chart 56 demonstrates, as a whole there has been very little change in the user assessment
of metadata sufficiency between 2011 and now. However, 2016 proved to be the year when
users were the least satisfied with this criterion.
Chart 56. Sufficiency of metadata 2011-2016
Source: Eurostat 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
54.1%
56.6%
53.0%
51.0%
40.8%
38.7%
40.7%
44.1%
5.1%
4.6%
6.3%
4.9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Average for allmetadata
Metadata explainingstatistics
Metadata on quality
Metadata describingstatistical production
Yes
Partly
No
55.2% 54.9% 57.2% 55.4% 55.3% 54.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
46
3.4.4 Twitter account
This year for the second time users were also asked to rate the interest of Eurostat's Twitter
feed and as in 2015 a bit more than 10% of the respondents expressed their opinion. The
responses (Chart 57) showed a positive evaluation, with over 86% of the respondents rating it
as at least satisfactory. Out of all respondents who expressed their opinion, 58.1% saw the
interest of the Eurostat's Twitter feed as good or very good, just 1 % point less than in 2015.
Chart 57. Interest of Eurostat's Twitter feed
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
3.4.5 User support
In the survey, users also had the opportunity to express their opinion on the support services
offered by Eurostat. Results are presented in Chart 58.
Leaving out those with no opinion or not aware of the user support function, the degree of
satisfaction remains the highest of all services with 72.5% of the respondents saying that they
were either “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the support service provided by Eurostat. The
share of unsatisfied users was 7.6% this year.
Chart 58. Satisfaction with user support, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
58.1% 28.6%
13.4%
Very Good / Good
Satisfactory
Poor / Very poor
72.5%
19.9%
7.6%
Very satisfied / Satisfied
Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied
Unsatisfied / Very unsatisfied
47
From a user group perspective, EU, international and political organisations were the most
satisfied with the user support (78.1%), followed by government users (77.5%) and students,
academics and private users (72.9%). Similarly to last year, businesses were a bit less
satisfied with the lowest share of positive responses (67.6%).
Between 2011 and 2016, overall satisfaction with user support has remained stable, as shown
in Chart 59.
Chart 59. Satisfaction with user support 2011-2016
Source: Eurostat 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
3.5 Overall quality of data and services
Users were also asked to express their views on the overall quality of the data and services
provided by Eurostat. As can be seen from Chart 60, the level of overall satisfaction remained
quite high with 65.3% of all respondents evaluating data and services as “very good” or
“good”, 23.3% as “adequate” and only 3.9% as “poor” or “very poor”. This year, EU,
international and political institutions as well as government provided most positive feedback
(69.5% and 67.9% choosing highest evaluations respectively).
72.4% 70.4%
72.7% 71.9% 74.4% 72.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
48
Chart 60. Overall satisfaction with the quality of the data and services, in %
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
As Chart 61 demonstrates, there has been little change in the assessment of the overall quality
of data and services since 2012, even if this year it is slightly lower than in the past.
Chart 61. Overall quality of data and services 2012-2016
Source: Eurostat 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 user satisfaction surveys
3.6 Comparison with previous year
It is interesting to note that more positive feedback came again, as in the past, from the
comparison of overall evaluation of Eurostat’s data, products or services with the previous
year (Chart 62).
65.3%
69.5%
67.9%
66.8%
61.1%
60.2%
23.3%
22.0%
20.3%
22.1%
21.6%
28.7%
3.9%
5.0%
2.4%
3.5%
7.8%
4.6%
7.5%
3.5%
9.4%
7.6%
9.6%
6.4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
All users
EU, international andpolitical organisations
Government
Students, academic andprivate users
Others
Business
Very good /GoodAdequate
Poor / VerypoorNo opinion
66.9% 66.1% 66.5% 67.0% 65.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
49
Contrary to what was expressed in response to some other questions, a number of
respondents stated that they saw data quality components and services as “better” than last
year when looking at the bigger picture. The most striking evaluation is for the website,
which was considered better than in 2015 by 20.2% of respondents, even if the judgement on
its quality went down when asked directly about it. This phenomenon might also be
explained by a potential continuous increase in quality standards that users expect from
Eurostat. Users may see improved data or service quality from last year, but are not
necessarily more satisfied with it.
A high percentage of “no opinion” responses remained, even if decreasing by 3 to 5% points
compared to 2015, which can be partly explained by the fact that some users did not take part
in the survey last year, did not recall their responses or simply did not have experience with
the services.
Chart 62. Changes in perception of Eurostat's data and services quality
Source: Eurostat 2016 user satisfaction survey
The large majority of the comments that users gave on this last question were again referring
to Eurostat website. Most of them expressed their satisfaction with the website which they
saw improved while some still preferred the old version. Some respondents also said that
regional statistics had improved, confirming the registered increased quality ratings for this
domain.
4. Messages from the users
A list of suggestions for improvement was drawn taking into account both the quantitative
analysis of the answers to different questions and the recurrent comments that respondents
could give as a free text. Most of them have already been mentioned in the previous reports.
20.2%
17.2%
16.1%
15.4%
13.6%
10.1%
9.4%
35.2%
40.4%
41.0%
41.5%
43.0%
34.0%
30.7%
1.9%
1.1%
1.1%
1.5%
1.1%
0.6%
1.1%
42.8%
41.3%
41.8%
41.6%
42.3%
55.2%
58.7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Website
Overall
Timeliness of data
Completeness of data
Comparability of data
Metadata
Support services
Better
Same
Worse
No opinion
50
To further improve the quality of statistical data by: (i) improving timeliness, (ii)
adding more estimates and forecasts, (iii) reducing data gaps due to confidentiality,
(iv) performing more checks and better quality control on data received by NSIs.
To provide data at a more disaggregated level or give more options for a breakdown.
To provide longer time series.
To provide more microdata and to make microdata more easy to access for the users.
To make navigation, data search and help tools more performant and user-friendly.
An overview of the data and links to national data would be useful.
To improve the Data Explorer so that it can support multiple queries.
To provide an email notifications system for when data are modified.
To expand the geographical coverage of provided data on non-EU countries.
To make the website more multilingual.
To improve metadata by: (i) providing more structured meta information on the
production of all published data, (ii) making clear, user-friendly and less technical
explanations on methodology and definitions, trying to avoid specialist language, (iii)
regularly updating metadata (e.g. when the methodology changes), (iv) in order to
make it easier to compare how national data are produced.
To have more topics covered by the release calendar and to include all expected
updates.
To keep further user surveys as concise as possible.
51
Annex 1
Statistical areas
1. Economy and finance, composed of
1.1 National accounts (including GDP, main aggregates, input-output tables and European
sector accounts)
1.2 Price statistics
1.3 Government finance statistics
1.4 Balance of payments
1.5 Financial accounts and monetary indicators
2. Industry, trade and services, composed of
2.1 Structural business statistics
2.2 Short-term business statistics
2.3 Tourism
2.4 Information society
3. Population and social conditions, composed of
3.1 Labour market (including labour force survey)
3.2 Population
3.3 Health
3.4 Education and training
3.5 Living conditions and social protection
4. International trade statistics
5. Environment statistics
6. Agriculture and fishery statistics
7. Energy statistics
8. Transport statistics
9. Science and technology and innovation
10. Regional statistics
11. Indicators, composed of
11.1 Europe 2020 indicators
11.2 Sustainable Development indicators
11.3 Euro indicators / PEEIs (Principal European Economic Indicators)
11.4 Globalisation indicators
11.5 MIP (Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure) indicators
12. Other
52
Annex 2
Breakdown of respondents by user group and country of work place
Students, academic
and private users
EU, international and political
organisations
Business Government Others Total
Belgium 57 69 51 31 12 220
Bulgaria 27 0 8 10 3 48
Czech
Republic 24 0 7 16 0 47
Denmark 18 5 13 7 5 48
Germany 118 21 128 47 27 341
Estonia 11 0 1 8 0 20
Ireland 23 3 6 6 3 41
Greece 70 1 18 8 2 99
Spain 128 6 37 36 8 215
France 83 16 65 38 12 214
Croatia 14 0 2 10 1 27
Italy 125 12 54 61 22 274
Cyprus 4 0 4 5 2 15
Latvia 9 0 2 5 0 16
Lithuania 12 0 1 5 0 18
Luxembourg 6 10 11 9 4 40
Hungary 29 0 6 9 1 45
Malta 3 0 3 7 2 15
Netherlands 33 5 61 8 7 114
Austria 35 3 19 15 5 77
Poland 39 1 9 17 2 68
Portugal 76 5 24 29 6 140
Romania 59 3 11 13 3 89
Slovenia 18 0 3 13 2 36
Slovakia 17 0 5 6 0 28
Finland 9 1 7 8 3 28
Sweden 25 3 15 20 5 68
United
Kingdom 75 4 69 15 12 175
Other (non-
EU) 216 32 92 114 18 472
Total 1363 200 732 576 167 3038
53
11.2%
9.0%
7.2%
7.1%
7.0%
5.8%
4.6%
3.8%
3.3%
2.9%
2.5%
2.2%
2.2%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.3%
1.3%
1.2%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
15.5%
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0%
Germany
Italy
Belgium
Spain
France
United Kingdom
Portugal
Netherlands
Greece
Romania
Austria
Poland
Sweden
Bulgaria
Denmark
Czech Republic
Hungary
Ireland
Luxembourg
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Croatia
Estonia
Lithuania
Latvia
Cyprus
Malta
Other (non-EU)
54
Annex 3
Brief description on the methodology for compiling the information on quality
Respondents to the user satisfaction survey had to choose the statistical areas they utilise data
from in one of the very first questions. Only for the areas selected by them in this question
they could later in the questionnaire provide an answer on the three quality aspects of
timeliness, completeness and comparability and on the overall quality.
The answers were summarised by Eurostat in the following way:
1. For all statistical areas that were composed of sub-areas the answers were summed-up in
such a way that the results would be compiled for the bigger heading (left column). As an
example we can take the bigger heading of "Industry, trade and services statistics", which is
composed of "Structural Business Statistics (SBS)", "Short term Statistics (STS)", "Tourism"
and "Information Society (INFSO)". Answers were provided for an assessment of SBS, STS,
Tourism and INFSO quality aspects but the results were added to come up with the figures
for the heading "Industry, trade and services statistics". The detailed results for SBS, STS,
Tourism and INFSO are also available but not published in this report.
The statistical domains (on the right) have been grouped under a bigger heading in the
following way:
55
2. Another compilation aspect is the adding up of the answers "very good" and "good" into
one answering category as well as adding up answers of "very poor" and "poor" into one
answering category. In the question about trust, the options "trust them greatly" and "tend to
trust them" as well as "tend not to trust them" and "distrust them greatly" were aggregated.
3. Percentages were then calculated as the share of answers for the heading of the statistical
area and for the answering categories of "good" (contains "very good" and "good"),
"adequate" and "poor" (contains "poor" and "very poor") as well as the "no opinion". As an
example the different steps of data calculation are illustrated in annex 4 for the question on
the assessment of overall quality.
4. Different smaller user categories were also aggregated in the following way to 5 broader
groups:
A) Students, academic and private users
Private users
Student or academic users
B) EU, international and political organisations
Commission DG or service
European Institution/body (other than Commission)
Political party/political organisation
International organisation
C) Business
Commercial company
Trade association
D) Government
Public administration
National Statistical Institute
E) Others
Redistributor of statistical information
Other
56
Annex 4
Example of calculations for the question on overall quality
Step 1. Detailed results for all statistical areas
Q9: How do you rate the overall quality of European statistics?
Overall Quality Very
good Good Adeq. Poor
Very
poor
No
opinion Total
Economy and finance - National accounts
377 564 238 112 57 56 1404
Economy and finance - Price statistics
183 292 142 71 40 28 756
Economy and finance - Government finance
165 247 114 67 30 39 662
Economy and finance - Balance of payments
118 166 90 54 30 29 487
Economy and finance - Financial accounts and monetary indicators
97 163 86 46 23 31 446
Industry, trade and services - Structural business statistics
115 228 167 68 24 41 643
Industry, trade and services - Short-term business statistics
74 163 103 47 17 23 427
Industry, trade and services - Tourism
67 106 65 29 14 22 303
Industry, trade and services - Information society
44 109 65 22 11 21 272
Population and social conditions - Labour market
229 411 212 81 39 60 1032
Population and social conditions - Population
236 426 207 87 41 64 1061
Population and social conditions - Health
118 191 111 45 15 29 509
Population and social conditions - Education and training
132 282 138 60 16 44 672
Population and social conditions - Living conditions
141 255 143 68 18 37 662
International trade 194 347 189 85 34 44 893
Environment 94 189 118 58 20 35 514
Agriculture and fishery 88 179 116 61 21 17 482
Energy and transport - Energy 108 191 122 46 25 35 527
Energy and transport - Transport 53 159 106 38 14 25 395
Science, technology and innovation 83 173 114 49 18 35 472
Regional statistics 123 236 152 73 33 33 650
Indicators - Europe 2020 indicators 134 201 121 51 29 47 583
Indicators - Sustainable
development indicators
70 129 83 36 13 35 366
Indicators - Euro indicators + PEEIs 67 110 61 35 8 37 318
Indicators - Globalisation indicators 50 91 48 24 7 25 245
Indicators - MIP (Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure) indicators
41 57 24 14 5 19 160
Other 7 23 11 8 6 23 78
57
Step 2. Results are aggregated under bigger areas
Overall Quality Very
good Good Adequate Poor
Very
poor
No
opinion Total
Economy and finance 940 1432 670 350 180 183 3755
Industry, trade and services 300 606 400 166 66 107 1645
Population and social conditions
856 1565 811 341 129 234 3936
International trade statistics 194 347 189 85 34 44 893
Environment statistics 94 189 118 58 20 35 514
Agriculture and fishery
statistics
88 179 116 61 21 17 482
Energy and transport 161 350 228 84 39 60 922
Science, technology and
innovation
83 173 114 49 18 35 472
Regional statistics 123 236 152 73 33 33 650
Indicators 362 588 337 160 62 163 1672
Other 7 23 11 8 6 23 78
Total 3208 5688 3146 1435 608 934 15019
Step 3. "Very good" and "good" and "very poor" and "poor" are merged
Overall Quality Very
good/Good Adequate
Poor/Very
poor
No
opinion Total
Economy and finance 2372 670 530 183 3755
Industry, trade and services 906 400 232 107 1645
Population and social conditions
2421 811 470 234 3936
International trade statistics 541 189 119 44 893
Environment statistics 283 118 78 35 514
Agriculture and fishery
statistics
267 116 82 17 482
Energy and transport 511 228 123 60 922
Science, technology and
innovation
256 114 67 35 472
Regional statistics 359 152 106 33 650
Indicators 950 337 222 163 1672
Other 30 11 14 23 78
Total 8896 3146 2043 934 15019
58
Step 4. Final table with percentages calculated
Overall Quality Very
good/Good Adequate
Poor/Very
poor
No
opinion
Economy and finance 63.2% 17.8% 14.1% 4.9%
Industry, trade and services 55.1% 24.3% 14.1% 6.5%
Population and social conditions
61.5% 20.6% 11.9% 5.9%
International trade statistics 60.6% 21.2% 13.3% 4.9%
Environment statistics 55.1% 23.0% 15.2% 6.8%
Agriculture and fishery
statistics
55.4% 24.1% 17.0% 3.5%
Energy and transport 55.4% 24.7% 13.3% 6.5%
Science, technology and
innovation
54.2% 24.2% 14.2% 7.4%
Regional statistics 55.2% 23.4% 16.3% 5.1%
Indicators 56.8% 20.2% 13.3% 9.7%
Other 38.5% 14.1% 17.9% 29.5%
Total 59.2% 20.9% 13.6% 6.2%
Recommended